Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution after petitioner’s death and inability to contact legal heirs.

The petitioner, S. Saifudeen, a Deputy Collector under suspension and not permitted to retire, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Charge Memo No. Ser.2(5)/01-19010/118/2024 dated 27 June 2024 issued by the first respondent.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner died in 2025. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, although the suspension order and the order refusing permission to retire had also been challenged, the petitioner’s legal heirs could not be contacted.

Whether the writ petition challenging the charge memo could continue when the petitioner had died during its pendency and his legal heirs could not be contacted.

Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for non-prosecution in the absence of steps by the petitioner’s legal representatives to pursue the proceedings.

The petition was instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which confers jurisdiction on the High Court to issue writs, including a writ of certiorari, for judicial review of unlawful or irregular orders.

The Court applied the procedural principle that a proceeding may be dismissed for non-prosecution where, owing to the petitioner’s death and the absence of available legal representatives or instructions, there is no effective progress or party actively prosecuting the matter.

The Court noted that the petitioner had died during the pendency of the writ petition and that counsel was unable to contact his legal heirs.

In those circumstances, there was no person before the Court effectively pursuing the challenge to the charge memo, suspension order, or order refusing permission to retire. Since the proceedings could not make meaningful progress, the Court held that there was no purpose in keeping the writ petition pending and invoked the procedural power to dismiss it for non-prosecution.

The connected miscellaneous petition, W.M.P. No. 23694 of 2024, was consequently closed. The Court did not adjudicate the validity of the charge memo or the underlying disciplinary proceedings on merits.